Formal request

Dear esteemed members of the Court of TNP:

Congradulations on being elected. As the new justices settle in and determine who the new Chief Justice will be, when the New Chief Justice is named I would greatly appreciate if they could address this request.

I am requesting that the Chief Justice considers declassifying the deliberations from Mall's "Request for Review: recent AG election" review. Which can be found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7230575/1/

When the ruling was made a few people including Justice Democratic Donkeys made comments that they would be curious to read the delberations. As a Candidate in that AG election, and the subsequent court ruling upheld my election in that race, I too am curious. I hope the court will induldge me and consider releasing the deliberations on that review to the courts declassified records section in a timely fashion in the near/immediate future. In an effort to support transparency and public accountability.

Thank you for your consideration.

That is only three months ago. I thought the court was not going to consider declassification for a year?

Also ... standing?

You need standing to simply ask if they'll consider something? It was a request to say "hey im curious. Do you mind doing this?" - the FOI law has proved time and time again it doesn't work. Several months back some were discussing repealing or rewritting it but nothing ever came to that. -- so this was merely me polietly asking nicely. The courts can say No if they want. No biggie. Im just curious.

Standing: Citizen of TNP. Curious. Inquiring mind. As I said in my OP: " As a Candidate in that AG election, and the subsequent court ruling upheld my election in that race, I too am curious." - the whole review centered on if GBMs vote would be upheld and PaulWallLibertarian42 would be awarded the AGs seat in the election, or if there were to be a runoff race between Mall and PaulWallLibertarian42. Last I checked since I am PaulWallLibertarian42, that case affected me and my future and in a way was about me as much as it was about Mall and GBMs vote. (Sometimes I wish they would have called for a runoff - Mall wouldve gotten it - then who wouldve left trollery complaints) ... anyway since I in someway was involved in the case and even submitted a brief, I would think I would have standing.

As far as a year or whatever - the records declassificstion is something former CJ Strings put in place, the court can amend its process at any time at their discretion. I figured with a new CJ coming in with the ability to change procedure at any time it doesnt hurt to ask.

Finally, I wasnt aware you got elected to the bench? Why are you being guarddog for the court? Pretty sure I only need to potentially answer to the Justices when making an inquiry to the court and not the peanut gallery.

Flem, it appears that this request is persuant to Chapter 5 Section 1 of the current court rules:

Adopted Court Rules:

3. Private Court records which are younger than six months but predate the sitting Court may be requested by an RA member and released if the Court finds a compelling benefit to their publication.

Click to expand...

Fair do's. I was typing from memory.

I would be quite interested to read the deliberations myself. Find out whether GBM was actually dead or not.

Thank you for the request. I will bring this to the attention of the other Justices so we might confer on releasing the thread ahead of the current schedule.

Edit: I am not responding to this in the capacity of Chief Justice, as we have not decided who will occupy that position. There is no reason we have to wait before discussing this however.

I will point out that "I am curious thx" is not a compelling benefit as specified for release.

SillyString:

I will point out that "I am curious thx" is not a compelling benefit as specified for release.

Click to expand...

Some of us were already aware of that.

I would argue however public knowledge and governmental transparency is a benefit however.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

I would argue however public knowledge and governmental transparency is a benefit however.

Click to expand...

Sure, but both of those are already covered by the existing policy, which will release the requested discussion in a matter of months. Any compelling benefit argument toward immediate release needs to make the case for that immediacy - use by the prosecution or defense in a criminal trial, perhaps, or evidence of partiality when seeking to overturn a verdict.

Grosse: yeah, I figure you three have got this. I'm commenting more for PWL's benefit.

Also, the court can chage their policys at their discretion. A new set of justices, a different CJ, a possibility the new court may decide to manage the court in a different style then the previous CJ has sat up. I mean if they wanted to they could conpletely rewrite all the standing court rules and regulations. Hence, as I stated, it doesn't hurt to ask.

As Chief Justice (yay me) I will not be altering the court rules on this particular subject. The court would like to hear a compelling reason for the release of this thread, because at the moment we remain unconvinced by your stated reasons.

Congratulations, dd, on becoming chiref justice. No doubt the decision was unanimous

DD is Chief Justice, Lord help up! I mean uh, congrats.

At this time I cannot come up with a compelling reason, was merely public curiousity, I was curious as to the courts rationale in deciding the manner and curious as to what presidence if any they might have set.

You won't have too long to wait to satisfy your curiosity. As to precedence, the ruling is what establishes precedent, not the discussion of the Justices.